About your Search

20130416
20130416
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
foreign policy in our countries, which a lot of americans are very ignorant about. cenk: i saw a tweet before i came on the air of someone saying the iraqis have been living with these kind of i.e.d.'s for 10 years because of the war we started when they didn't attack us on 9/11 at all. it happens here once, we all totally justifiably freak out it could have been us, could have been our kids, only it was the iraqis, it was their kids based on a war we started and never be should have. cenk: security, and how do you protect against these threats think of iraqar kabul any city with a high level of violence, you have the entire government set up to prevent bombs from getting through and they still can't do it. you have 100,000 iraqis and americans searching every car and they still get through. there is no way to protect against this stuff on a 100% basis. the fact that this happens with irregularity with other things blowing up around the world, we should be thankful for it. one in 20 million is not bad. cenk: on a relative scale. there is one mythical thing that if it turns out it was a
families have skin in the game of foreign policy, but if you don't a son or daughter in uniform, husband or wife in uniform, where is your skin in that game when you're not paying for those decisions? and when we make decisions that we don't have to pay for, we make bad decisions. i agree with the president. folks need to pay their fair share. i think we all need to have some skin in the game. folks who make more ought to pay more. folks who make less ought to pay less. but we are all members of the board of directors of the united states of america, mr. speaker. all 320 million of us sit on the board of directors of the united states of america, and yet you ought to have skin in the game when you are making decisions about high this organization runs. how do we create revenue? how do we reduce deficits? how do we make sure folks are paying their fair share? the good news is, mr. speaker, the president's aware of the fair tax. i am not willing to call him a fair tax president. i don't think the president's quite onboard, we are not going to wait on the president to be onboard. we are goi
think for the foreign exchange market, it's more a question of policy action. and now, because we're in this limbo, that leaves sterling a little bit of limbo. >> meanwhile, the treasury there is targeting sales of 4 to 5 billion sales in six-month and is 1-month t bills. yes, same with italian yields, as well, michael. are we now at the low point in the cycle for spanish and italian yields? who is going to drive them lower from here and why would you? >> i think the market has seen a lot of liquidity expansion. first from the fed and then lastly from the bank of japan. and combined with the renewed commitment from the ecb to protect the euro, this has depressed yields to these kind of levels. i think it's difficult to see us going dramatically further. and if anything, strategically, we think that the three major problems in europe, the recession, inconsistent crisis management and rising political and social backlash against austerity are likely to come through and that leaves spain and italy very vulnerable to a sharp increase in yields. we're looking, for example, for 10-year
is not an investment but an insurance policy against the collapse of the dollar. when your cost of insurance goes down, it means you're healthier. the chicken little scenario, larry, we run trillion-dollar deficits, borrow half from foreigners, they'll stop lending us money or at least not at low rates and we'll crash. now, that's not going to happen. because of the energy boom, we're going to have the first trade surplus in a generation by 2020, as things are going. and that means we can finance things deficits as far as the eye can see. doesn't mean the economy isn't weak. we will have a deficit. the good news is, our credit is going to be good. the rest will keep lending us money at low interest rates and that's a big plus for the stock market. >> peter schiff, an interesting take that david goldman has used and i've given him a hat tip for it. energy independence, we don't have to import from the saudis other other people, the trade baume' go into surplus. that would be good for the dollar and that in turn would really crush gold. that's a strong dollar, not the volcker way, peter, as you pointed
to him of his reign. his father died in 1944. two years before that, his dad told foreign reporters that his son, kim jung il had been in charge of day-to-day policies for the previous decade. that takes us back to the early 1980's. if you want to get into real inside baseball, north koreaian media was talking about the rise of the party center in the 1970's. party center being eventually debuted as kim jung il. he had about a quarter century of grooming before becoming the king. he had a long time to consolidate authority. with with his hands on the dashbored, he-dived the plane. he was the only -- he more or less destroyed the institutions of party and state. so by the late 1990's and early 2000's there was no correspondence between what the party was supposed to look like and what the cabinet and state system was supposed to look like and the way he was operating the government. he was more or less running the country out of his bathtub with a couple of police secret forces to help. he paid no attention whatsoever to continuing the dynasty. he was completely feckless on this. t
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques that employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions that the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in torture, then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of, like waterboarding, stress and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel, which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in it his opinion it relies not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is in important context as to how the penny came about but also how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the avai
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)